Hacker News Reader

Comment by shostack | Hacker News Reader

One thing I really worry about with the future of cars is ownership.

If you are renting your car, you cannot do as you like with it, and if you stop paying, you lose transportation. Today, if you own a car it might be an absolute beater if you don't maintain it, and it might be illegal to drive without insurance, but as long as you have gas, odds are it will actually run.

Further, I wonder about the subscription model as it is applied here. Many people buy cheap cars outright because they don't like ongoing payments. If the future is a subscription model, it seems they can raise the price whenever they like (market forces aside).

While I think the whole concept of owning a car is definitely something in flux (as it should be), I hope the alternative is not just "car + subscription" and ultimately paying a higher price in the end.

View on HN

You are making the assumption that all companies will use a subscription or pay-as-you-go model. If their is a large enough market of people who want to buy their cars outright, a company will fill that need.

Think about the cell phone model where most people in North America are on a subscription which includes the cost of their phone, or at least subsidises it. You can still go out and buy an unlocked phone.

In Switzerland, there is a service called "Mobility" where you can basically rent a car by the hour. You have to set up an account and provide them with a copy of your drivers license once, but after that, a car can easily and instantly be booked on their website or by using their mobile app. In larger cities, there's always a few cars nearby, ready to roll. They take care of all the maintenance stuff, repairs and insurance; you just pay a fixed amount per km you drive and for the duration of your use.

It's remarkably convenient and cheaper than owning a car if you don't drive that much. I can totally see this as the future – especially with self-driving vehicles.

They have this is in most major US cities too (Zipcar, Enterprise Car Share, Hertz 24/7, GetAround).

I tried it for a bit in NYC but found that while it was useful for things like grocery shopping, most of the times public transportation was sufficient for my needs. For longer trips spanning multiple days, it was almost always cheaper to rent from traditional vendors. I can see it being useful if you live on the outskirts of the city or in more suburban areas, though.

I guess many European countries have companies offering this kind of solutions. Like Greenwheels in the Netherlands and Zipcar in the UK. I also saw something similar in Paris, I think. Plus there is Whizzcar in Singapore.

Very cool. Similar to how Taxis (and Uber, Lift etc) work -- you're paying a premium for someone else to drive you around without owning a car.

"If you are renting your car, you cannot do as you like with it, and if you stop paying, you lose transportation"

Actually I think most cars (at least in Europe) are already rented (or leased, or payed for by the company, or...) one way or another.

If I understand correctly then what will be added is shared usage. That will make the 'ownership' probably cheaper.

What are the indications that cars are moving toward a subscription model? As far as I can see, it's one company with no product that's considering offering a subscription model.

I can't think of any physical product out there which is only available as a subscription. The option to buy outright is always there if you want it.

The Honda Fit EV was only available for lease, never for purchase.

http://www.plugincars.com/honda-fit-ev

Compliance cars are weird in general, since the manufacturer doesn't really want to sell them. I wouldn't take that as anything meaningful outside the universe of compliance cars.

Edit: I realize what I said above isn't quite clear. I meant that there's no category of physical product out there that's subscription-only.

You can rent a car, or you can rent money to buy a car (i.e. take out a car loan and make interest payments). In the end it's all kind of the same.

Many people buy cheap cars outright because they don't like ongoing payments.

They still have to pay for insurance though, right?

Insurance is a legal requirement, but your car will still physically run without it. There's no remote kill switch (yet).

I mean, "legal requirement" seems quite an important thing when we're talking about how people get around every day.

I totally agree, but the post above seems to be worrying about a scenario where you stop paying and immediately lose your access to transportation. As it stands, you can stop paying and probably get by for a while. I wouldn't recommend it and I'm not sure I see any merit in allowing it, but I gather that's what they're getting at.

Except for those in high-risk categories, legally required insurance doesn't cost very much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com